did you expect water... : V - Skyrim

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:55 pm

It looked great for what they were trying to represent in that shot. The more calm flowing water can be seen in the scene where the hooded character walks into town and when you stab the guy by the river side.

Oh yeah, that looked very good. Nice to see the 'normal' water actually flowing.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:40 am

Ok I did a very quick retouch in Photoshop just to explain what I mean. Not that it should look like this, but just how they could improve it by adding some simple particle effects.

Normal: http://img695.imageshack.us/i/watere.jpg/
Edited: http://img42.imageshack.us/f/water2f.jpg/

I'm not telling Bethesda how to do their job because they know it a thousand times better than I do. I'm just explaining to you what I think would look better. They have their reasons for having it as it is now (performance limitations probably).

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:37 pm

...to be this awfully looking, seriously ? man, we're in 2011 that's a real shame !

The water looks absolutely fine, I would even go so far as to say it looks great.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:45 pm

I am quite aware and do you know what happens when you see an entire river of particle effects in your FOV? Your system will lag horribly and most likely crash on anything less than the best of computers. Sure, my computer could run it without lagging but Johnny Knocker down the street with a good computer but not a high end gaming computer watches as his computer catches fire. From what people have said, they want the entire water as spray particles. If people don't see the particle effects in the water, watch the video again. You can see as it moves, which the water looks great as what it is supposed to be, white water, and it has spray particle effect where it collides with rocks and what not. They did great with the white water rapids but some people don't have an eye for detail.

It's not like that water is their moving water, their moving water you can see in other scenes like the cave where he is launching a light spell from the staff or the waterfall in the cave where he makes a massive fiery explosion with a spell. Their moving water looks great, but that "waterfall" wasn't their moving water, it was white water rapids, which if you know what it's supposed to be it looks great.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think even top computers would be able to handle a fully realized water particle system, even if it was just in FOV. The time and power to render an animation sequence of water particles is sufficient to make me think that a real time water particle system in a game environment is still years away.

In a scene like that river, even using large particles that would result in a rather globular effect, we'd be talking tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of particles interacting with each other and the environment. Just calculating the interaction of the particles would take a lot of power. Add onto that the lighting and rendering effects that would be applied to each one, it would be way too much to do in real time.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:23 pm

I think everyone can agree there could be some improvement done, but why are some of you so worried? You can pick apart screenshots and clips of trailer footage, but I assure you that, graphically games look different and feel different when you're playing them compared to a trailer. It's a big difference and I feel Skyrim will be beautiful once we set foot in it

.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:09 pm

The water looks like crap. I'm disappointed. This Oblivion all over again. Guess I'll play Morrowind...

Clearly BGS should have focused all their resources on the water effects...

The Elder Scrolls V: Rivers, Falls, and Brooks

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:23 pm

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think even top computers would be able to handle a fully realized water particle system, even if it was just in FOV. The time and power to render an animation sequence of water particles is sufficient to make me think that a real time water particle system in a game environment is still years away.

I didn't say that at all. I said earlier that doing a complete river of water particle effects ran around 3 terabytes of rendering, which anything short of a super computer wouldn't run. I was meaning more of the slopping particle effects all over the water mesh would seriously bog down all but the best computers. The only thing I think should be added to that water is reflective properties, which are most likely not added due to performance issues on the console, which is why water detail and reflection options have different detail levels. A little light shine off of those meshes would really liven in up a bit but the meshes are very good at representing real white water and anyone who thinks differently obviously haven't seen white water rapids in action.

In short, a little light reflection on the white water meshes (not image reflection, just light reflection) would make it look even better than it already does.

The water looks like crap. I'm disappointed. This Oblivion all over again. Guess I'll play Morrowind...

Clearly BGS should have focused all their resources on the water effects...

The Elder Scrolls V: Rivers, Falls, and Brooks

At first I thought you were serious and I was about to bonk you over the head.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:24 pm

You don't need fancy graphics features to make good looking water. The problem with those waterfalls and rivers are the actual textures and the shader settings.

They could borrow from Tomb Raider: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqTwZpCGmgA&feature=related

Oceans waves, soft edges, underwater caustics, light diffusion (rays) and refraction are hardware taxing and need a hand from Direct X 10. But all the rest is texture/shader quality. Age of Conan has some very nice looking oceans and streams: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UokKGPSQbHM

The waterfalls not so great (still better than Skyrim's), because of their fog particle emitters, which look very cheap. This is the Direct X 10 version tough, but having played with the earlier 9, it still looks very good.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:49 pm

So, what games have done it better? Or at all? Couldn't find anything on youtube, but surely there must be some games out there that have attempted roaring streams rather than trinkling along slowly and/or animated bumpmaps on a still surface. It's easy to say it doesn't look right, and I agree it could be better, but I have no idea what would work (within reasonable cost).

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:17 pm

You don't need fancy graphics features to make good looking water. The problem with those waterfalls and rivers are the actual textures and the shader settings.

They could borrow from Tomb Raider: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqTwZpCGmgA&feature=related

Oceans waves, soft edges, underwater caustics, light diffusion (rays) and refraction are hardware taxing and need a hand from Direct X 10. But all the rest is texture/shader quality. Age of Conan has some very nice looking oceans and streams: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UokKGPSQbHM

The waterfalls not so great (still better than Skyrim's), because of their fog particle emitters, which look very cheap.

For the last time, that pic is not a waterfall, it is white water rapids and that's what they look like. Waterfalls are like those in Markarth that have their mist particle effects and everything a waterfall should because they are actually waterfalls. The picture is rapids.

So, what games have done it better? Or at all? Couldn't find anything on youtube, but surely there must be some games out there that have attempted roaring streams rather than trinkling along slowly and/or animated bumpmaps on a still surface. It's easy to say it doesn't look right, and I agree it could be better, but I have no idea what would work (within reasonable cost).

No one at all, that's the answer. Very few people have tried to do white water rapids and none of them look nearly that good.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:49 pm

Am I the only one who's disappointed that people are really arguing over how good the water looks? I think people are too obsessed with prettiness these days. Everything looks fine to me, though, like I've said before, I would be content if it had Morrowind's graphics. :shrug:

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:21 pm

For the last time, that pic is not a waterfall, it is white water rapids and that's what they look like. Waterfalls are like those in Markarth that have their mist particle effects and everything a waterfall should because they are actually waterfalls. The picture is rapids.

No one at all, that's the answer. Very few people have tried to do white water rapids and none of them look nearly that good.

I was actually talking about the waterfalls from the first screenshot, which looked as rigid as the runing water from the trailer.

But that's okay, it's the one thing that didn't look really great in the trailer. Still passable though.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:53 pm

Ah yes, how could I forget. Gothic 3 had some great looking waterfalls. And there's nothing fancy there, technologically speaking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8ibEq-rFt8

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:24 pm

Am I the only one who's disappointed that people are really arguing over how good the water looks? I think people are too obsessed with prettiness these days. Everything looks fine to me, though, like I've said before, I would be content if it had Morrowind's graphics. :shrug:

Unfortunatly to accentuate the negative , seems more indicative of the forum. But i reckon it's because people are passionate about this series

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:53 pm

I was actually talking about the waterfalls from the first screenshot, which looked as rigid as the runing water from the trailer.

But that's okay, it's the one thing that didn't look really great in the trailer. Still passable though.

That's what I was talking about, which isn't a waterfall, it's a rapid. I guess you are only looking at the screen. If you watch the video in action, it actually looks like flowing water, especially if you pay attention to the particle effects as the water run against the rocks.

Mainly I think it's just people get so used to graphics rocketed forward since the late 20th century to now that they've come to http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/xx281/Soulece/threadq.png?t=1298598393 point where they overestimate the extent at which graphics for games can actually go at this point in time.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:18 pm

Am I the only one who's disappointed that people are really arguing over how good the water looks? I think people are too obsessed with prettiness these days. Everything looks fine to me, though, like I've said before, I would be content if it had Morrowind's graphics. :shrug:

Your not the only one friend. Though I'm more worried. We wonder why games our constantly getting less immersive. Maybe its because if a company doesn't focus on graphics and tries doing something creative, people come out and moan about the water... :shakehead:

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:37 pm

That's what I was talking about, which isn't a waterfall, it's a rapid. I guess you are only looking at the screen. If you watch the video in action, it actually looks like flowing water, especially if you pay attention to the particle effects as the water run against the rocks.

Mainly I think it's just people get so used to graphics rocketed forward since the late 20th century to now that they've come to http://i764.photobucket.com/albums/xx281/Soulece/threadq.png?t=1298598393 point where they overestimate the extent at which graphics for games can actually go at this point in time.

You do realize that you just officially opened the door for someone to post a Crysis screenshot of a landscape looking exactly like that, right?

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:50 pm

The water looks like crap. I'm disappointed. This Oblivion all over again. Guess I'll play Morrowind...

Clearly BGS should have focused all their resources on the water effects...

The Elder Scrolls V: Rivers, Falls, and Brooks

I was about to be annoyed by your first sentence until I read the sarcasm below in the next two sentences.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:56 pm

You do realize that you just officially opened the door for someone to post a Crysis screenshot of a landscape looking exactly like that, right?

Don't know why they would. Crysis, in terms of partitioning development of visuals and development of world/content, is a vastly different partition than TES.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:33 pm

Am I the only one who's disappointed that people are really arguing over how good the water looks? I think people are too obsessed with prettiness these days. Everything looks fine to me, though, like I've said before, I would be content if it had Morrowind's graphics. :shrug:

The way I see it, if this is what ends up in the "con" section of reviews on release, then I'm a happy camper. :happy: The same view could be applied to the forum reception I think.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:19 am

Your not the only one friend. Though I'm more worried. We wonder why games our constantly getting less immersive. Maybe its because if a company doesn't focus on graphics and tries doing something creative, people come out and moan about the water... :shakehead:

Which isn't even bad on top of that. People have become so disconnected with the real world that they can't tell the difference between rushing water rapids and a waterfall. The waterfalls in Skyrim are insanely realistic if you see the markarth part of the video where they have mist and what not at the bottom. The screen everyone keeps crying about and saying that the water in Skyrim must svck is actually just white water rapids which it looks almost perfect for what it represents in texture. Other rushing water that isn't rapids can be seen in the cave scene where the character shoots light from the staff and running water can be seen in the village scene and in the scene where the guy gets stabbed in the stomach by the river side, which also looks incredibly real. People just stick labels on things and say they look terrible when none of it looks terrible.

» Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:15 am

You do realize that you just officially opened the door for someone to post a Crysis screenshot of a landscape looking exactly like that, right?

Pfft, if Crysis looked anywhere as real as that I would be replaying my copy over and over until Skyrim came out which will have graphics just as good. Not to mention that me and other modders will be adding little tiny details to improve graphics over what no game dev would ever spend time working on.

» Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:18 am

As for people demanding more realism for immersion, it's only natural. Technology advances, people have higher expectations. No audience today would take special effects done in the 50's seriously. In 50 years, people won't find today's games as immersive. It's how the visual media evolves, more power for the artists, less effort to the audiences. A videogame is a visual media, it's not a book. If there wasn't a realistic rendering in the past (and still in the present), it's because of technological limitations, except in cases designers (and directors) clearly made an effort for them to look abstract. Take the video out of videogame and we'd still be playing around the table. Nothing wrong with that, by the way.

And yes, take the game out of videogame, and it's a techdemo. I'm not implying Crysis is a good game. Just saying both aspects are equally important.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:07 pm

As for people demanding more realism for immersion, it's only natural. Technology advances, people have higher expectations. No audience today would take special effects done in the 50's seriously. In 50 years, people won't find today's games as immersive. It's how the visual media evolves, more power for the artists, less effort to the audiences. A videogame is a visual media, it's not a book. If there wasn't a realistic rendering in the past (and still in the present), it's because of technological limitations, except in cases designers (and directors) clearly made an effort for them to look abstract. Take the video out of videogame and we'd still be playing around the table. Nothing wrong with that, by the way.

And yes, take the game out of videogame, and it's a techdemo. I'm not implying Crysis is a good game. Just saying both aspects are equally important.

Your totally right that better graphics is just as important to immersion as a living world and engaging gameplay, completely agree and that isn't even disputable. The problem is that people over extend their perception of what a game should look like now because they have been spoiled with graphics increases taking such huge jumps over the most recent years and when graphics jumps have slowed, they see this cutting edge graphics game and they expect more when there isn't more to give.

» Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:20 pm

No, but I did expect a large number of whiny, [censored]ing threads complaining about one minute detail endlessly despite the amazing glimpse we were just given at the game we (I assume) are all anxiously awaiting.

Hey look. I was right.

This.
Seriousy, people. Do you guys even like TES?